A drone hovers over members of law enforcement stand watch over a gathering on a sidewalk in protest of the election process in front of the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center on November 14, 2022 in Phoenix, Arizona. (Photo by Jon Cherry/Getty Images)
Police departments across the country are stocking up on new technology, touting the benefits of enhanced, generative AI-powered software and new camera systems to improve public safety. This past spring, the Portland Police Department invited reporters and the public to learn more about its new virtual reality system. Officers posed with the clunky headsets and faux-tasers, touting the benefits of a training system that’s worth more than a teacher’s starting salary.
Portland and a number of other municipal departments are currently piloting AI transcription software for body cameras. The next high tech toy? Surveillance drones. The Portland Police Department is currently requesting one drone, citing staffing shortages and what they see as undeniable technological benefits of the surveillance devices. Earlier this month, the City Council’s Health and Human Services Committee advanced the proposal to the full council on a split, 2-2 vote. It’s expected to receive a full council vote in October.
The technology vendors who make body cameras, drones and the software that powers them make bold claims about their efficacy, likely hoping to create a narrative of inevitability to the largely untested technology.
Maine surveillance policies inadequate
As law enforcement agencies in Maine adopt and buy new policing technology, the laws and regulations governing such tech are woefully inadequate. This is serious stuff: advanced policing technology can be used to create false evidence, surveil citizens, and lead to wrongful arrests and jail time.
The current laws in Maine governing the use of drones by law enforcement were written in 2015, far before most of this technology had entered the mainstream. The law itself provides some helpful guidelines for the usage of drones, but has next to no transparency or enforcement mechanisms attached to it. Despite the fact that the technology itself comes with extensive reporting, tracking, and fancy analysis features, none of this information is required to be provided to the public or to the Maine Legislature. We don’t know when these agencies flew drones, where exactly they went, what they recorded, or if the use of a drone was justified. There is in fact little to define “success,” and no tools to compare drone deployment across departments. Our statewide policy on the use of AI in law enforcement is even weaker: a comprehensive policy outlining how, when, and where departments can responsibly use AI doesn’t exist.
An ever-expanding suite of services
Despite citing a dire need for advanced technology provided by these companies, the state’s own tech capacity is still stuck in a land of paper forms, PDFs and websites that look like they haven’t changed since the 1990s. I’ve worked in the field of civic technology for over ten years, organizing and working to improve and build software in the public interest. The State of Maine’s tech capacity, including the ability to hire and retain qualified product managers, software engineers, and designers, has arguably gotten worse over the years, even as massive technology contracts to third-party vendors get approved.
The way many local governments purchase and maintain tech software right now is comparable to buying a brand new car without knowing anything about cars, how to drive them, or what danger they can cause. You trust the dealer to make recommendations on which model you’ll get. You trust the dealer to add on the bells and whistles you need. You’ll trust the dealer to teach you how to drive (for a fee, of course.) And, here’s the catch: the car is only half the total cost. Instead of merely buying the equipment, you also trust the dealer to give you an ongoing maintenance and software plan that only the dealership can provide. The plan isn’t expensive now, but it renews every three years, ideally forever. What could go wrong?
Just like with the nearly $70,000 virtual reality VR headsets, the Portland Police Department’s case for acquiring the drone is bolstered by the fact that it’s already paid for! Local taxpayers won’t pick up the tab because various federal grants and forfeiture funds cover the bill.
However, that’s just to acquire the technology. Drone programs also include a whole suite of software and training. These companies make more money on their software and services than they do on the hardware. Portland Police won’t be able to update or fix their own equipment: All of the maintenance, training, and software costs are covered by software vendors whose business models rely on a continued, ever-expanding suite of services.
Locally and on the state level, governments are woefully unprepared to regulate and manage technology like drones and AI transcription. The Somerset County Commissioners just approved a massive, $840,000 contract with Axon, the same manufacturer who makes the drones Portland wants to buy. Axon also makes body cameras now commonplace in departments across the state. Maine’s lack of basic regulation is Axon’s gain.
Who gets surveilled?
With 29 drones on its police force, the city of Chula Vista, California provides a case study for the law enforcement use of drones. A Wired investigation published in June analyzed 10,000 police drone flight records and found that “drone flight paths trace a map of the city’s inequality, with poorer residents experiencing far more exposure to the drones’ cameras and rotors than their wealthier counterparts.”
Police drones have cameras that can clearly capture people’s faces and enable the agency to regularly record entire swaths of the city. Residents in over-surveilled neighborhoods in Chula Vista understandably reported having the feeling of being constantly watched. Circular logic supports these efforts: look for crime and you’ll find it. Use that evidence of crime to then support increased surveillance. In this case and many others, privacy is a right only enjoyed by the wealthier, white parts of the city.
A way forward
Here’s a reasonable proposal on the use of technology in cities: don’t buy drones. Don’t allow for the use of AI in body cameras. Don’t buy augmented reality headsets. Don’t buy cameras or sensors or even “smart streetlights” until the state of Maine and all of the municipalities who want to take advantage of this technology can reasonably prove that every single policymaker who votes on such proposals can explain how and why a data standard works, what an Application Programming Interface (or API) is, and how AI models are trained.
Then, we need a comprehensive data privacy bill of rights that covers every single person in the state. Privacy should not be determined by race or income and it must be protected and enforced. Basic tech literacy should be a baseline for regulating technology in the public interest. It’s not too much to ask that the policymakers and agencies who use this technology understand how it works and the implications for its usage beyond what’s provided in a sales brochure. We shouldn’t be flying blind when it comes to any technology and especially tech that can surveil and jail residents.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.